User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 164

  1. #101
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    By principle, I don't see why the financially successful should be obligated to pay more to the government.

  2. #102
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    I´ve always thought the graduated tax system was based on the concept that the rich have more to lose, literally, if there was no government to protect them (think revolution to redistribute ¨wealth¨) and conversely more to gain by sustaining a stable government and by extension economy.

    As to the OP´s question, define fair.
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #103
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    I´ve always thought the graduated tax system was based on the concept that the rich have more to lose, literally, if there was no government to protect them (think revolution to redistribute ¨wealth¨) and conversely more to gain by sustaining a stable government and by extension economy.

    As to the OP´s question, define fair.
    I think that its got more to do with the idea of a law of diminishing returns operating, ie up to a point money brings happiness, although after that it just brings more money.

    That to someone with very little money each extra cent matters to someone with money in great, great supply each extra cent, while it may matter and be valued (this is a pretty subjective thing, there are careless spendthrifts in all walks of life no doubt) is not liable to matter just as much.

    What I think is missing from discussions of this kind though is that the expectations of those at the very bottom of the heap, those who are frequently attacked for propagating or feeling envious all the time, are pretty low, they literally are contented with less, its nothing compared to the scale of the avarice at the other end of the spectrum, often ideologically motivated now.

    That to me is THE paradigm shift which has taken place, whereas once the wealthy may have considered taxation as having, in part, functions such as almsgiving or poor relief in earlier societies, and that those were quite legitimate, that has changed. Even were some compromise was forthcoming, in the past, in the shape of deciding it was more expensive to avoid, evade or challenge tax collecting than simply pay it, that's gone now.

    I say that having friends who work for the inland revenue in NI who've told me about shifts over time and the willingness of people who they used to collect taxes from to try everything to avoid it now, he's an interesting guy to talk to because he's clued in on objectively what a lot of the political decisions mean and is pretty clear that all the UK policies pursued from the present unelected and unelectable "coalition" took office that all they have done is attempt to ensure that while the down turn, recession and crisis is in effect that their personal fortunes are uneffected. Its something I've suspected and wouldnt be surprised at but they've seen it and known it to practice for a long time.

    I mean when organisations like the IMF decide that you're taxation and spending policies are deletarious and could lead to an impossibility in telling cyclical from structural unemployment there should be alarm bells ringing.

  4. #104
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    MP: Anyhow, you didn't respond to what was actually the central and more important point.

    Zara: I wasn't aware I had to. I don't deny that fact.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    #1 Zara: Good job selectively responding to what I wrote, bud.

    #2 Zara: And, no offense to you, but your post doesn't address what I said...


    hahahaha. You make me giggle.



    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    p.p.s. Taxes need to go up, and [/or] costs need to be cut, at about a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases.

    The simple fact of the matter is that we are in the midst of a major demographic shift, in which more of our country is getting older, and, as such, we must allocate more of our resources to the government in order to pay for these old peoples' Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But by the same token, we cannot afford to pay for everything we have promised them, and, as such, we must reform entitlements. Social Security was originally set up with the expectation that it would only pay for 2 years of benefits until the average retiree died. This is no longer the case, because life expectancies have increased so dramatically over the last 60-80 years. Now they're paying for 20 years, or more, of benefits. This is unsustainable. You can't have such a huge number of old people leeching off the system for so long a time, with such large benefits.

    "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." - Herbert Stein, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
    I agree wholeheartedly with the bold. If we look at our system in a static state, we have people younger than the age of 20 and older than the age of 65 being supported by some percentage of the population who fall between those ages. I don't think it is impossible to continue with this structure, but I do think it will require a shift in expectations, either on the part of those groups being supported or on the part of the people who are supporting them. In a very general sense, all economic policies are in place to incentivize certain behaviors that meet these goals. It is very unfortunate, however, that we must rely upon national debt (which is an inscrutable way of doing so) rather than taking a more direct method (or, to go even further, addressing the systematic causes rather than bandaging them with stopgap measures).

    As an aside, I've been learning a lot about the fall of the Roman Republic, and there are some striking parallels to our current situation. Quite foreboding.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #105
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    EDIT: Oy. I just put together how that post was structured. Nevermind.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #106
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    What was I suppose to respond to?

    The point I was making is that as far as projected costs go for Medicare, they have relatively little to do with the aging of the population.
    It wasn't directed at you.

    Edit: I should also add that the post isn't meant to be accusatory or to mock. I just literally giggled when I read those posts.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #107
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    What's fair?

  8. #108
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    I'm sure this is due to some temporary flaw in my worldview at the moment, but there's a side of me that would like to see more deregulation, more Bernie Madoffs, more CO2 emissions, more short term thinking Wall Street, more tax breaks for the rich, 30 years of fools like GW Bush or Delay or Rick Perry running the country, more consumers buying things they can't afford, even lower wages and higher credit to the point of indentured servitude or slavery, and more trillions borrowed from overseas to finance wars.. just so people finally get the message that the whole approach is flawed on a system wide level. Bring the ideology to it's full conclusion. A sort of self-induced Zombie Apocalypse or Noah's Flood situation (for you religious types). There's a good chance humans might change then (at least for a time). I think I have a chance to survive on my own in that, but probably 75% of the population would be reduced. Whoever's left can rebuild society in a more harmonious fashion.

    But like I said, that's just a temporary thought.

  9. #109
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    What's fair?
    The question stands.

  10. #110
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The question stands.
    One cannot objectively ascribe the term fair to any real world situation; its application is necessarily born from subjectivity. By posing such a question, therefore, one either seeks data on the subjective opinions of the masses, or he seeks to illuminate the prejudiced nature of such discussions. Either way, I'll give it a go...

    We gather the entirety of humanity together to observe the creation of two distinct, dichotomous states of being. Each person must decide whether he or she will continue on in state A or state B. These states represent the entirety of future experiences: structure, preferences, lifestyles, opportunities, abilities, etc. If, upon knowing these states completely, roughly half the population willfully chooses one, and the rest willfully choose the other, then these states are equal and represent a fair set of circumstances.* If one state is preferred over the other, then there exists unfairness.

    How'd I do?

    *It should be noted that this 50/50 split is meant to represent a state of indecision. In a state of perfect fairness, should a person who chose A be told that he must choose B, he would care little about the transition.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. Rate the functions per their comfort levels in time of stress
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 08:25 PM
  2. [E8] How do you deal with an aggressive 8 in the work place?
    By knight in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-24-2012, 09:20 PM
  3. [Fe] Fe help stat: what do I wear to an academic reception in the evening, no dinner?
    By Usehername in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 10:12 PM
  4. GM, So do I own the equivalent of a Pontiac G5 in stock now, or what?
    By Brendan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 08:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO